I’d like a discussion. Is it possible that doing good; aid, unemployment, etc. allow politicians to avoid making the hard decisions? Do aid organizations or unemployment benefits allow bad situations to continue by ameliorating the effects of those situations? If there were no outside, and, let’s face it, socialist, handouts would the resulting pressure spur permanent corrective actions?
If starvation is caused by drought, then one could argue sending food until the drought ends is good. But if starvation is caused by politics; say, not allowing genetically modified crops that will grow in the parched region, then what does the food aid accomplish but defusing the pressure that might instigate change?
Thoughts?
Until the masses feel the pains of hunger - there will be no revolution! Gotta love those socialist banking hordes who promised everything but gave nothing...
Keep an eye on food supplies in this country. An industrial food system is much easier to manipulate or control than a more locally grown supply. If you’re too weak to pull a trigger, then the 2nd ammendment doesn’t mean squat. It’s a part of the Gulag Principal.
The article mentions Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. I’d like to see a breakdown of which one gives how much - actual amount and percentage.
Austerity? Would that be government dependents having problems because they haven’t been self-reliant?
A lesson in becoming frugal and resourceful even if your income is derived from government.